A peek at the truth: Violence in the UK vs violence in the US.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

This will be the first a series of commonly misunderstood stances. This issue focuses on the view that the US is a violent place, by comparing it with another country commonly seen as a relatively stable and safe country.

Discounting murders (because of the historically low murder rates in the UK this figure would distort these statistics I am going to present).

The US has a total violent crime rate of 463, the UK has a violent crime rate of 2,300 these are per 100,000 people. However this rate is disputed as the violent crimes reported where during this time frame (2007 for both countries, as this is the last year with solid figures in all areas for both population and crimes in both countries, some estimation is done in other years) was 2,420,000. Since the population of the UK was some 60,609,153 this actually gives a rate of 3992.8. Going by the EU figures (with no indication provided for crimes and figures where added into the rate and which where left out) we have a violent crime rate of 2,034.

The most violent place in the US, Washington D.C., had a decades old ban on firearms. Still even with a rate twice the national average they had less then half the reported rate in the UK. For the sake of accuracy I will state that D.C. also had one of the worst murder rates in the world at the time.

The murder rate:

US - 0.042802 per 1,000 people, UK: 0.0140633 per 1,000 people (global average is .1)

Which translates to:

US - 16,204, UK - roughly 1,000 total murders. Figures released by the UK government are notoriously inaccurate, and usually only list total homicides (1,645), and rarely release any kind of break down, even as simple as which deaths where, negligent, and murder. However good estimated figures exist for which crimes where in fact murders and hover around 1,000-1,200)

Arguments, where you can possibly say that having a gun around possibly contributed to the escalation to murder accounted for only 3,645 murders in the US. However only some 1,200 of those where committed with a firearm, in crimes of passion people use whatever is handy, which is not a gun as often as you might think. While most murders (10,000 of them) where committed with a firearm. Gangland killings accounted for 77 murders, arguments over property (and committed during a robbery) accounted for 282 murders. It's far more likely that you are going to be the target of murder in this country then the victim of a botched robbery, a gang murder or even a brawl escalated into murder.

In total escalated violence, and accounted for a little over half the murders in the US. The rest where crimes of passion, and premeditated murder.

Private statistics from the country show that armed robbery with handguns has risen 40% since 1997, and that overall some 10% of murders in the UK are committed with guns. The murder rate has also drastically increased in the country since 1954 by nearly 70%. Violent crime risen as well. Inner city areas account for most of this increase where rates have nearly doubled (91% increase). A drastic increase in gun violence in a country that is held as the gold standard of gun control.

All of this is irrelevant because the initial gun laws had little to do with protecting individuals as they did with protecting society in the UK. Labor disruption lead to fears of Bolshevik revolt lead to the first major gun bans in the 20s. Unfounded or not the government felt it needed to remove guns from the hands of individuals to protect society as a whole. This reversal of centuries of common law is evident more now then ever before in the country. Where the country has laws making defending yourself on an individual level a risky proposition, let alone defending another. The country has sacrificed individual liberties for social security, and figures stacking up seem to show that it's not working. You cannot take a good long look at the social changes that account for the massive increase in violence in the country since the 1960s without a look at the policies that enabled them including gun control. However I would like to state that gun control is irrelevant to this argument. The gun laws came about because of the social changes that lead to more violence and did not cause them.

When I mention a historically low murder rate in the UK I mean it. As long as they have been tracking murder rates (since around 1700) the UK has fluctuated around 1.0 murders per 100,000 people. Up to the 1960s the UK rate was stable around 1.0, since 1960 it has risen nearly a 50% increase to 1.4. The increase in crime cannot be attributed to a lack of funding for police as the police presence has risen out of proportion with the crime rates since the 1960s as well and from a rate of 15 per 1,000 people to a rate of 110.9 per 1,000, dipping slightly after the 90s to a rate of 92 per 1,000 (For England and wales, only accurate figures by the governments where unavailable for Scotland and Northern Ireland, but are estimated to be higher). That is a six fold increase in police presence.

The rape dispute:

I would like to take a moment to also contend that while rape convictions in the US remain higher then the UK, the UK has taken to dismissing many more minor rape charges (such as minors and taking advantage of an inebriated individuals).

Reporting in rape cases has always remained low, but it seems that the lack of punishment for these specific rape cases has lead reporting to sink even lower. The US remains a reporting rate of about 30 per 100,000 while the UK has a rate of 22. In other words reported rapes are lower in the UK. However a vetted survey that includes research presented by BBC 1 in the UK that showed there where an estimated 85,000 cases that would have qualified as rape under US laws occurred in 2006, but only 800 convictions for rape, figures show that 13,000 rape cases where reported in the UK during the same time frame, meaning only roughly 16% of rapes are reported in the UK, while in the US 41% of rapes are reported.

Not all together surprising when an estimated 1% of rapists are actually punished for their crime.

While the figures may be prone to some over reporting, as they indicate some 1 out every every 230 women in the UK was raped in 2006. That would still pale in comparison to South Africa where one out every three women in a sample of 4,000 surveyed where rapped in the same year.

The US has a reporting rating of roughly 40% for rapes, 47% of those involved alcohol or where date rapes. While the US has seen a sharp decline in rapes since 1980 (roughly 80%) it is likely the majority of this is lack of reporting as what constitutes rape has changed. Not as many women report incidents where things escalated while alcohol was involved.

The US probably leads crime statistics only in homicides, with rape a contested category. Even using only figures provided by the government in the UK the rates of all crimes aside from Rape and homicide are higher in the UK, with most being four times as high. However with the falling homicide rate in the US (at the end of the 80s the rate stood at 7, and is currently 5.4, most notably the areas with the highest rates across the country are falling drastically) and the rising rate in the UK it may only be a matter of time before the rates are comparable.

Both countries suffered a rise in violence from the early to mid century, however this rise started to reverse in the 80s in the US while it escalated in the UK.

How it compares with some other countries:

Germany has seen an increase in violent crime lagging behind the rest of the world starting in the 80s. The full extent of this increase cannot be judged yet. Germany remains a relatively safe place to live. Canada has roughly twice the violent crime rate of the US. Only Australia seem to be immune to the social woes plaguing modern developed countries, with some of the lowest crime statistics in the developed world outside ignoring minor countries with small populations that skew results.

Dispute, discuss or tell stories, whatever you people want, as long as it is relatively on topic. And if you read the entire lengthy post, thanks.

This is excellent. And I look forward to all future installments.

One thing that must be said However. It would be nice to see this backed with some sources or links. Personally, I trust you because I know you. But that can't be said for others. And its a shame if this effects their decision to listen.

Pimppeter2:
This is excellent. And I look forward to all future installments.

One thing that must be said However. It would be nice to see this backed with some sources or links. Personally, I trust you because I know you. But that can't be said for others. And its a shame if this effects their decision to listen.

Good idea. In the future I will be noting sources of information as I gather them. Possibly even stick to APA guidelines for references.

I plan to do better segmenting the text into more manageable chucks under subtopics.

I'm wondering what the reasoning behind this topic was.

Not what you were trying to get across, that the US is not the pit of human depravity it is depicted as by the rest of the world, but rather why you made this topic to try to convince people otherwise.

Guns are to killing what those scooters you sometimes see fat people on are to walking.
I've seen statistics that pretty much say the exact opposite, so I just ignore statistics.
That said, I live in a place without guns, and we don't have crime either so there's always that.

Souplex:
Guns are to killing what those scooters you sometimes see fat people on are to walking.
I've seen statistics that pretty much say the exact opposite, so I just ignore statistics.
That said, I live in a place without guns, and we don't have crime either so there's always that.

You live in New York City one of the better metro areas to be sure, but you are right there at the national average for violent crime. Your statement is useless to the discussion because other metro areas without the gun restrictions are doing better if not far exceeding New Yorks rates.

In other words gun ownership are irrelevant to these statistics.

Amethyst Wind:
I'm wondering what the reasoning behind this topic was.

Not what you were trying to get across, that the US is not the pit of human depravity it is depicted as by the rest of the world, but rather why you made this topic to try to convince people otherwise.

Because it is a commonly held belief used in arguments. One I have been hearing recently. I have been for about a month or two been debating starting a series where I shed a little light on the truths behind some of these false ideas held as common beliefs.

I notice a lot of people are concentrating on the "gun ownership" part of this rather well-written post. The statistics on gun control seem to be self-contradictory. While crimes committed with firearms has been shown to increase in areas with gun control laws implemented, total firearm violence decreases. What is included in 'total' violence includes incidences of self-defense, accidents, illegal discharges, and other situations where the intent was not to commit a crime. Though it seems odd, gun control laws and firearm incidences have little direct correlation. All that changes is the type of incident.

What I'd like to see is a breakdown of various crimes by location committed. I'm not sure how to word it, but what I mean is I'd like to see what kind and percentage of crimes were committed in large cities, small cities, suburbs, and rural areas. I think that would be more revealing than blanket countrywide stats, as US analogs for similar areas in the UK are actually markedly different. Not to rag on the OP, because it was excellently written, just wondering out loud.

This, boys and girls, is a "thread." Asking a silly hypothetical question, encouraging a procession of folks to leave their one-line answers, is not "discussion value." While I'm not going to debate in this thread, I do want to say that this is a very interesting read and a great write up by manaman.

I think it was a good thread, but I'll give it an 89% because you brought some very good facts, which you said you will soon back up by links, but the biggest problem is you seem to lack a cohesive conclusion of your opinion and direction. Well written, but unfinished.

And I'll refer to Heinlein on this issue. "An armed society is a polite society."

The Long Road:
What I'd like to see is a breakdown of various crimes by location committed. I'm not sure how to word it, but what I mean is I'd like to see what kind and percentage of crimes were committed in large cities, small cities, suburbs, and rural areas. I think that would be more revealing than blanket countrywide stats, as US analogs for similar areas in the UK are actually markedly different. Not to rag on the OP, because it was excellently written, just wondering out loud.

Thanks I started to break it down but the US is to large. Cultural influences see dramatic differences in various states. New York City for instance has a low rate of vehicle theft, robbery, and related non violent crimes. While the Puget Sound region across the country has lower rates of murder, lower rates of most violent crimes (aggravated assault, and armed robbery being higher) and lower rates of rape. Both areas compare with the national average overall however on total crimes. It usually depends on which topics are hot button issues in the local area and that has more to do with the what the people in the area see as a problem.

Inner city areas across the US tend to have the highest crime rates regardless of the city, while some areas efforts (New York sate as an example again) have made great strides to improve the lives of the poorest people, and this is reflected in the crime statistics to a major degree. When the poorest people have more they are less likely to resort to crime.

I edited out a lot of the social pressures that contribute to crime as well in each country. The US is a far more capitalistic society, with a much greater attachment of personal worth with personal wealth. Programs that help sway children of a life of crime, programs to promote education as an easy means of enriching lives, and raise the poorest people above or to poverty levels in the US have a great effect on crime, while there is less of an effect for the same programs in the UK.

It was getting far to long to be a suitable read for a forum. I decided to stick to the important points and judge country wide rates. As for urbanized area, and the possibility of more rural living in the US. 83.9% of the US lives in urbanized areas, while 90% in the UK lives in urban areas. I felt those figures where close enough to ignore for the sake of length. The population in the US focuses around dense urban areas. In Washington my home state there are 6.2 million people living in the state, 4 million of which live in the Seattle-Tacoma-Everett area. A series of dense urban centers spotted with suburban centers between. Most of the country lives in ares like these.

The major issue I have with any type of post which purports to giving a fair comparison tends to disregard how crime is recorded is various countries. The best place I could find was Wikipedia for this, which did have a reference, albeit with a dead link. This claims that the UK includes a range of other crimes which are excluded from the US violent crime rate. This is also evident in the links below (1 and 2), where the US has a range of other crime rates which are seemingly kept apart from the magical 469.2 you give at the start but are included in the UK. I won't pretend to know how these various statistics are actually recorded, but I know they're not comparable, which is why I tend to find these arguments pointless.

I know the UK is exactly the safest of places, but I imagine our statistics on violent crime is skewed heavily by our drinking habits on the weekend. We're some of the worst in the Europe in regards to binge drinking, and we have entire police shows (like cops) dedicated to following police and the shit they deal with on Friday and Saturday nights. It's just part of our culture, but it is also easily avoidable. 24hr drinking, it just isn't long enough!

Also, leaving out the murder rate from the violent crime statistic is counter-productive to your argument. Murder is a violent crime, even if it distorts your argument, by leaving it out it just distorts the statistics in a different direction.

References from brackets in text. I can't be bothered to properly format.
(1) http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html
(2) http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/hosb1206chap78.pdf
I noticed how you copied the intro from here as well: http://wheelgun.blogspot.com/2007/01/crime-in-uk-versus-crime-in-us.html

Meh, last time I looked at the figures there was more gun crime in NYC than the whole UK.

Interesting and pretty well written, I look forward to further installments, though I have nothing to add my self.

Woot! Go Australia!

>.>

Ahem, now that that's done with... Very interesting read, although I don't know why you discount murder statistics. Surely they're just as, if not more, important as the others?

AfterAscon:
The major issue I have with any type of post which purports to giving a fair comparison tends to disregard how crime is recorded is various countries. The best place I could find was Wikipedia for this, which did have a reference, albeit with a dead link. This claims that the UK includes a range of other crimes which are excluded from the US violent crime rate. This is also evident in the links below (1 and 2), where the US has a range of other crime rates which are seemingly kept apart from the magical 469.2 you give at the start but are included in the UK. I won't pretend to know how these various statistics are actually recorded, but I know they're not comparable, which is why I tend to find these arguments pointless.

I know the UK is exactly the safest of places, but I imagine our statistics on violent crime is skewed heavily by our drinking habits on the weekend. We're some of the worst in the Europe in regards to binge drinking, and we have entire police shows (like cops) dedicated to following police and the shit they deal with on Friday and Saturday nights. It's just part of our culture, but it is also easily avoidable. 24hr drinking, it just isn't long enough!

Also, leaving out the murder rate from the violent crime statistic is counter-productive to your argument. Murder is a violent crime, even if it distorts your argument, by leaving it out it just distorts the statistics in a different direction.

References from brackets in text. I can't be bothered to properly format.
(1) http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html
(2) http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/hosb1206chap78.pdf
I noticed how you copied the intro from here as well: http://wheelgun.blogspot.com/2007/01/crime-in-uk-versus-crime-in-us.html

Which is why I gave the differing rates. Even comparing the EU given violent crime rate of 2035, which is the same across member states of the EU, the UK is a far more violent place to live then the rest of Europe.

I did an in depth look at what makes up the statistics, the US and UK use similar reporting for violent crimes. Aggravated assault, battery, domestic violence, armed robbery, you name it they both count it. Pretty much the only major reporting difference was that the UK counts an affray as a violent crime, you know what an affray is, but a for those in the US it is an altercation that threatens unlawful violence. While across most of the US that is not a violent crime unless those threats are carried out, or an attempt it made to carry them out. However what information I could find on reporting statistics, and arrests showed this to only be a negligible increase, and in no way can account for the four fold increase over the US rate.

The Home office statistics show crime rates overall reduced, and that the chances of a person becoming a victim of any crime supposedly feel by 9% in 2009, to a total of 22%, but only the home office makes this claim, and the EU rates show the chance of becoming a victim of violence in the UK at a staggering (and frankly unbelievable) 70%. This was another problem the led to me sticking with the 2006/2007 rates an mostly ignoring the 2009 study by the home office. I really hate to accuse the UK goverment of cherry picking for results, but the goverment cannot even seem to agree with itself as far as crime rates are concerned after 2006.

Even giving the lesser reporting weight, do you really want me to believe that the crimes the US just isn't counting account for the rate being only 22% of the UK rate, and that is the lower rate given by the EU.

I am sorry, but there is to much of a gap between violence in the US and UK to spin it away as a numbers game.

To answer your last point, murders can safely be ignored when looking at total violence because it would add 1.4 to the 2035 violent crime rate for the UK and would add 5.4 to the 463 rate of the US.

Continuity:
Meh, last time I looked at the figures there was more gun crime in NYC than the whole UK.

Gun crime is crime committed while being in possession of a firearm. It's a sub statistic of the total rates, and not one that is important to the discussion. The mugging was a mugging done with a knife, bat, gun, turtle, five buddies, or a stranglehold.

Honestly? I put this down to culture. The Brits love to fight, we settle things with our fists. I've seen a massive shift in the way things work. With CCTV, current recording practices etc. I would have had an ASBO if I was growing up now. As a child and a teenager I would fight, break things, hang around in large groups causing mischief etc. I'd have a criminal record if I did that today. Today, if a teenager steals the milk from your doorstep or climbs over your fence you call the police. Years ago, if you didn't chastise the toe rag yourself you'd get his parents to do it and the police would not be involved.

Once upon a time you would go out "up town", get drunk, maybe have a fight with the bouncers. If you won you would come back next Friday and everything is good. If you lost you lay low for a couple of weeks then come back, no harm done. Now you will be seen on CCTV, go through the courts, maybe do some jail, get a criminal record and be banned from all of the drinking etablishments in town.

The last labour government was keen to criminalise everything. They added thousands of new offences and were keen to use the legal system to combat everything. They would not leave the criminal justice act alone, constantly changing it and adding to it.

So what happened to this hell raiser? I was good in school, all the teachers said I was polite and smart, I got to adulthood without a criminal record and now have a good job in criminal justice.

I don't feel that England is anymore dangerous than it used to be. The media just latches onto every incident. Knife crime? Gangs? Teddy boys, mods and rockers all used to hang out as gangs and carry weapons. Unfortunately, as is the way of things, the older generation is always scared of the younger. Believing that morals are dying out and that the end of society is around the corner.

In my work I hve seen firearms offences go up. Having said that a lot of people who seem to get shot are "bad guys" who I would ague probably had it coming. Drug dealers feel threatened, get a gun for protection, so when someone comes to hurt them they have to use a gun. Gangs, shoot at other gangs. The average person in the UK will only ever see fire arms on the TV. Also a lot of our recorded firearms offences involve the use of a replica weapon or an air rifle, which are treated just as seriously.

A lot of this is anecdotal, from my experience, so feel free to disagree.

Good Writing on the Escapist: It's not just for staff and magazine freelancers! We've got some brilliant writers on the forums, and Manaman, you're well on your way to joining those ranks.

Do those figures from the UK include Northern Ireland?

Continuity:
Meh, last time I looked at the figures there was more gun crime in NYC than the whole UK.

Maybe so but at least in America you can go out at night.

tl;d- kidding!
this is really interesting. proof that UK isnt just full of Beatles posh londoners and george stephenson. although i am a posh londoner. and i live about 15 minutes away from george stephensons house.

about the rape charges:
Labour understood that the conviction rate for england is the lowest in the world, so were conducting an review into the handling rape charges. cameron comes in, and the tories burn anything relating to the previous leadership - including this investigation. the excuse is to save money.

money saved: 441,000
camerons salary: 142,500
His wifes salary: 400,000 (she runs some place in london called smythson)

Killings are lowest in 20 years
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/21/police-figures-unexpected-drop-crime
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2010/apr/27/conservatives-crime-figures-reality-check
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8153392.stm

that's 651 murders in a population of 61,414,062 (that's the 2008 population number btw)

Crime is going down at record levels in England and Wales
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/apr/22/uk-crime-rates-police-force

the risk of being a victim of crime is now at its lowest for 30 years
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/apr/22/crime-falls-despite-recession-figures

basically don't belive the hype
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8368310.stm

most UK measures say crime has fallen year after year since 1997 except when the figures are in the hands of the opposition or certain newspapers who like to engender fear.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/852555f8-9004-11df-91b6-00144feab49a.html

anyway have a look for yourself:
http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/ia/atlas.html

mikozero:
Killings are lowest in 20 years
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/21/police-figures-unexpected-drop-crime
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2010/apr/27/conservatives-crime-figures-reality-check
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8153392.stm

that's 651 murders in a population of 61,414,062 (that's the 2008 population number btw)

Crime is going down at record levels in England and Wales
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/apr/22/uk-crime-rates-police-force

the risk of being a victim of crime is now at its lowest for 30 years
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/apr/22/crime-falls-despite-recession-figures

basically don't belive the hype
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8368310.stm

most UK measures say crime has fallen year after year since 1997 except when the figures are in the hands of the opposition or certain newspapers who like to engender fear.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/852555f8-9004-11df-91b6-00144feab49a.html

anyway have a look for yourself:
http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/ia/atlas.html

There are two problems with those stories, one isn't really your fault. Those statistics are for England and Wales only. I used statistics for England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. Scotland and Northern Ireland are definitely more violent places then England and Wales true, but not by the vast gap usually considered. The second problem is that the Home Office is the only body reporting those figures. The UN and European Union studies both Show a rise in both simple assault and major assault in England and Wales when graphed from 1996 to 2006, a rise in total crime, violent crime, but a dip in homicide rates in England and Wales, but a rise in homicide rates elsewhere in the UK. Specifically the study lists them as some of the countries with both the highest increasses and high incidents of assault. The European Union study lists the overall probability of becoming a victim of crime in the UK at 70%. Even the 2006 Home Office study showed an increase in crime between 2000 and 2006, while the 2009 study shows a decrease. Due to this disagreement between rates I choose to base most of the information of 2007. Yes it was three years ago, and yes the rates maybe falling, but the intent here was to show that if the US can be considered less violent then a nation commonly considered to not be violent, then the US is not in fact the violent place people consider it to be.

Souplex:
Guns are to killing what those scooters you sometimes see fat people on are to walking.
I've seen statistics that pretty much say the exact opposite, so I just ignore statistics.
That said, I live in a place without guns, and we don't have crime either so there's always that.

Is there no crime because there are no guns or no guns because there isn't any crime?
'Tis the question.

Johnnyallstar:
And I'll refer to Heinlein on this issue. "An armed society is a polite society."

Hence the world famous civility of Somalia.

One thing I have noticed is when a society tries to deal with violence and law they disperse violence more than remove/lower it. Guns in the UK is a good example you get less deaths but more crime then they have to ban other items in order to try and lower the over all violence.

The US is a miss mash of ratios the most surprising is the regions with less laws on guns and more open carry laws you have less crime.

Cultural norms help lower/raise over all ratios but I think when a society tries to go out of its way to ban things in order to lower violence you get more situations where the lawless are more armed than the law abiding and the law abiding are that much more dependent on government local or regional protection, as laws tend to only effect the lawless. Law makers forget this in their march to get elected.....

Souplex:
Guns are to killing what those scooters you sometimes see fat people on are to walking.
I've seen statistics that pretty much say the exact opposite, so I just ignore statistics.
That said, I live in a place without guns, and we don't have crime either so there's always that.

Your comparison isn't all that valid. If only because if you want someone dead, it doesn't matter if you have a gun at hand or not. The only true weapon is the mind. As long as it functions, you can successfully kill anyone, regardless of what tools are available.

I would also argue that guns, in and of themselves, are no more harmful than a knife or any of a number of other equally lethal items that are widely available. It requires either staggering amounts of stupidity or intent to do real damage with any of them.

I'm of the opinion that our backwards-ass laws are what has increased the damn murder rates in the UK, having the option to defend yourself without fear of getting raped in a shower a week later is a nice thing to have.
Of course, there are those out there that don't understand what defence is.

Striking someone who struck you? Defence.
Striking a man repeatedly after he insulted your mother? That's not defence...

Axolotl:

Johnnyallstar:
And I'll refer to Heinlein on this issue. "An armed society is a polite society."

Hence the world famous civility of Somalia.

Ya but you will not remove the tensions and hatred by removing guns you will just created better armed groups who will use more random hit and run tactics. Also you can't really compare Somalia to a stable modern country, they have so many problems before you can even attempt a functional weaopn ban and even then if you have a army thats not that badly corrupted ...it just leads to that much easier of a coo...

I think the ideal of "An armed society is a polite society." is true, I mean look at tribes and other societies before the introduction of easy access to guns, everyone had a weaopn but not all social groups self imploded on themselves.

Guns are not really new persay they just make killing more efficient its humanities own lust for greed and control that ultimately causes strife and massacres and it dose not help politics ignores things in order to look good....

Agayek:

Souplex:
Guns are to killing what those scooters you sometimes see fat people on are to walking.
I've seen statistics that pretty much say the exact opposite, so I just ignore statistics.
That said, I live in a place without guns, and we don't have crime either so there's always that.

Your comparison isn't all that valid. If only because if you want someone dead, it doesn't matter if you have a gun at hand or not. The only true weapon is the mind. As long as it functions, you can successfully kill anyone, regardless of what tools are available.

I would also argue that guns, in and of themselves, are no more harmful than a knife or any of a number of other equally lethal items that are widely available. It requires either staggering amounts of stupidity or intent to do real damage with any of them.

Well it is a decent comparison however he forgets some fat eople can not walk well at all due to other issues not just being lazy or fat. Its the same with guns, a gun is a tool that can kill but also has a deep and rich history yes it has bad history too but essentially its a tool with limited use as are bows as are nailing guns as are staplers as are bats. It comes down to the person using it as lawless or crazy people will use any object to harm others.

Huh.
You know, i have no trouble beliving that.

That was a very interesting thread - I look forward to reading you next time.

It saddens me that people will jump faster on the issue of gun ownership and it's relationship to violence than they will on the issue of rape. It's sad because people seem to naturally shy away, or just 'not see' the topic. And I want to say it was good of you to mention it in your essay, if only to stop it becoming a closet issue.

I don't know how rape differs in different countries and it's obviously hard considering no one knows how often it occurs. I think it's more of a regional issue rather than a issue that can be compared between countries. Even the best nations have their slums and impoverished areas where crime flourishes.

Isn't talking about violence and discounting murder a bit like talking about sexual assault and ignoring penetration? I don't disbelieve anything said, but I don't really see how the exclusion of the most typical violent crime, in a point made by comparing violent crime has any relevance to any argument about...anything. It's a pretty subjective comparison at best, I wonder how many of those violent crimes would've have been murders had an instant and relatively withdrawn method of murder been immediately available (all it takes is a split second of insanity to lethally shoot someone, most other methods require somewhat more effort).

Also, while I don't have much of an opinion on gun ownership (though I hate people who completely neglect common sense and leave loaded firearms lying around...It's not fascist gun control, it's just common sense) I feel the whole "if guns are illegal only criminals will have guns" argument is a touch flawed. I live in Melbourne, Australia and, outside of police, nearly all gun owners are criminals. Strangely enough, the only people who ever seem to be hurt by guns are also criminals (it's scary how easy they are to acquire), I'm far more worried about someone attacking me with a legal knife or broken bottle than I am about getting shot....

The 5th Hour:
That was a very interesting thread - I look forward to reading you next time.

It saddens me that people will jump faster on the issue of gun ownership and it's relationship to violence than they will on the issue of rape. It's sad because people seem to naturally shy away, or just 'not see' the topic. And I want to say it was good of you to mention it in your essay, if only to stop it becoming a closet issue.

I don't know how rape differs in different countries and it's obviously hard considering no one knows how often it occurs. I think it's more of a regional issue rather than a issue that can be compared between countries. Even the best nations have their slums and impoverished areas where crime flourishes.

I think the gun debate is more diluted than rape but harder to prove completely one way or the other.

Rape like murder has 3 layers the victim the perpetrator and the evidence, unlike murder the vicing lives and the the situation is easier to fake. It can be as difficult as anything else to prove, but with the evolution of human bullying in law we could take a lot more steps when it claimed and processed.

But like parts of human bullying(sexual harassment, odd levels of forced eqaulity ,racial stuff,ect,ect) and the loss of presumption of innocents in the US.... its just a mess to deal with. If you are asking is rape bad, to me its the same as murder and needs to be handled like it.

Dys:
Isn't talking about violence and discounting murder a bit like talking about sexual assault and ignoring penetration? I don't disbelieve anything said, but I don't really see how the exclusion of the most typical violent crime, in a point made by comparing violent crime has any relevance to any argument about...anything. It's a pretty subjective comparison at best, I wonder how many of those violent crimes would've have been murders had an instant and relatively withdrawn method of murder been immediately available (all it takes is a split second of insanity to lethally shoot someone, most other methods require somewhat more effort).

Also, while I don't have much of an opinion on gun ownership (though I hate people who completely neglect common sense and leave loaded firearms lying around...It's not fascist gun control, it's just common sense) I feel the whole "if guns are illegal only criminals will have guns" argument is a touch flawed. I live in Melbourne, Australia and, outside of police, nearly all gun owners are criminals. Strangely enough, the only people who ever seem to be hurt by guns are also criminals (it's scary how easy they are to acquire), I'm far more worried about someone attacking me with a legal knife or broken bottle than I am about getting shot....

All arguments are flawed and rape without penetration is still torture, but when a society makes laws to limit guns, creates zones(parks,forests,ect) to limit guns in you create better ways for criminals to take advantage of it. I think on gun ownership we have chosen zero tolerance over looking at the case things from a case by case perspective.

I don;t think we need a law to tell people how to put up guns I think we need a law to fine people when guns are misused even if its the death of their own child, tho I guess when the wablance is called people will want such laws repealed because tis somehow more harsh than life itself.

I see guns like I see vehicle ownership people do not know how to drive well and half of them should not even be on the road but we as a society don't really care about that and msot people want to be allowed to drive no matter how bad they are.

Gun ownership is like that but we have managed to place more odder more arbitrary rules on it and frankly zero tolerance BS is not helping things.

ZippyDSMlee:

I think the gun debate is more diluted than rape but harder to prove completely one way or the other.

Rape like murder has 3 layers the victim the preparatory and the evidence, unlike murder the vicing lives and the the situation is easier to fake. It can be as difficult as anything else to prove, but with the evolution of human bullying in law we could take a lot more steps when it claimed and processed.

But like parts of human bullying(sexual harassment, odd levels of forced eqaulity ,racial stuff,ect,ect) and the loss of presumption of innocents in the US.... its just a mess to deal with. If you are asking is rape bad, to me its the same as murder and needs to be handled like it.

Yes I agree that rape is and will never be the black and white occurrence that murder is (not talking about motive or means - just outcome). Law isn't perfect and law enforcement isn't prefect either, unfortunately it's the reason rape is an almost impossible issue to solve perfectly and why some people hold the opinion that gun ownership is a civilian right. But you can't handle rape the same way you handle murder - we've been trying that for ages and although we are at the best time in human history for justice it could still be a whole lot better. Yes rape is bad, yes murder is bad - but different issues need different solutions.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked