• You are using the old Black Responsive theme. We have installed a new dark theme for you, called UI.X. This will work better with the new upgrade of our software. You can select it at the bottom of any page.

Some accurate UK reporting?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Iain

Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Messages
1,540
Location
Elsewhere
Possibly this is accurate, it is new information.

First the good(ish)
The number of crimes involving firearms increased by just under 3% in the 12 months to March 2003, to 10,250.

It was well below the 35% rise in the previous year, when gun crime leapt from 7,362 firearms offences to 9,974.

Then the bad
Violent crime - excluding robberies and sex attacks - increased by 12% between April and June this year, according to the British Crime Survey quarterly results, also released on Thursday.

Then the reality
The British Crime Survey, which includes crimes not reported to police, also found:
*Overall crime fell
*The risk of being a victim is the same as in 1981, at 26.9%
*There were 5% fewer violent crimes reported to the survey in the 12 months to June 2003
*Recorded robbery fell 7% in April-June 2003 compared to same period last year

It's not great, but it's not Beirut.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3195908.stm
 
So gun crime is up a little (on top of a huge spike the previous year), and violent crime (excluding robberies and "sex attacks") is up substantially, but overall crime is down?

Definitely possible. The problem with surveys is that how you define the crimes can have a HUGE effect on the numerical result you get. If the gun crimes included alot of things like finding a .22 Short in somebody's sock drawer, then they aren't so meaningful. If they are limited to things more like carjackings with AKs, then they are reason for alarm.

In general, I'm ALOT more concerned with violent crime than non-violent crime. I would think that most people would be more worried about getting carjacked, beaten and left for dead in the middle of the road, versus, say, somebody selling fake Rolexes and untaxed Jack Daniels.
 
In general, I'm ALOT more concerned with violent crime than non-violent crime. I would think that most people would be more worried about getting carjacked, beaten and left for dead in the middle of the road,

You have to look beyond even that, to the definitions used. In the UK, a "hot" burglary (the occupants are home, perhaps asleep) is not defined as a violent crime - even though by its nature the intruder is armed, even if it's only a screwdriver or something. And these are far more common in the UK, than they are here. They are so common that they no longer imprison people for this crime unless they are repeat offenders.

The best source for level data is a study done by Leyden University (Netherlands) because they use common definitions for various offenses. Under that study, the UK has more crime than any other developed nation. Crime rates are far higher than in the US, which comes off looking very well indeed.
And at least part of that crime pattern must be attributed to civilian disarmament - hot burglaries are rare where criminals may encounter a gun. Street muggings are rare in places where the victim is allowed to carry a gun, etc.

Keith
 
You have to look beyond even that, to the definitions used.

Jeez, does anybody actually READ my posts? ;)

Quoting myself (the second time today, no less... ):

The problem with surveys is that how you define the crimes can have a HUGE effect on the numerical result you get.

Reading is fundamental, kiddies. :D
 
Jeez, does anybody actually READ my posts?

Yeah, I did. You are trying to make a point about how "gun crime" is defined. And while the point is valid, it's misses the bigger issue; violent vs non-violent crime and how those issues are defined around the world.

Suicides in the US are generally listed as a form of "Gun Violence", which is ridiculous. While in GB, a "hot" burglary is listed as a non-violent crime, which is equally ridiculous.



Britain, Australia top U.S. in violent crime
Rates Down Under increase despite strict gun-control measures
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Jon Dougherty
© 2001 WorldNetDaily.com

Law enforcement and anti-crime activists regularly claim that the United States tops the charts in most crime-rate categories, but a new international study says that America's former master -- Great Britain -- has much higher levels of crime.

The International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by Leiden University in Holland, found that England and Wales ranked second overall in violent crime among industrialized nations.

Twenty-six percent of English citizens -- roughly one-quarter of the population -- have been victimized by violent crime. Australia led the list with more than 30 percent of its population victimized.

The United States didn't even make the "top 10" list of industrialized nations whose citizens were victimized by crime.

Jack Straw, the British home secretary, admitted that "levels of victimization are higher than in most comparable countries for most categories of crime."

Highlights of the study indicated that:

The percentage of the population that suffered "contact crime" in England and Wales was 3.6 percent, compared with 1.9 percent in the United States and 0.4 percent in Japan.
Burglary rates in England and Wales were also among the highest recorded. Australia (3.9 percent) and Denmark (3.1 per cent) had higher rates of burglary with entry than England and Wales (2.8 percent). In the U.S., the rate was 2.6 percent, according to 1995 figures;
"After Australia and England and Wales, the highest prevalence of crime was in Holland (25 percent), Sweden (25 percent) and Canada (24 percent). The United States, despite its high murder rate, was among the middle ranking countries with a 21 percent victimization rate," the London Telegraph said.
England and Wales also led in automobile thefts. More than 2.5 percent of the population had been victimized by car theft, followed by 2.1 percent in Australia and 1.9 percent in France. Again, the U.S. was not listed among the "top 10" nations.
The study found that Australia led in burglary rates, with nearly 4 percent of the population having been victimized by a burglary. Denmark was second with 3.1 percent; the U.S. was listed eighth at about 1.8 percent.
Interestingly, the study found that one of the lowest victimization rates -- just 15 percent overall -- occurred in Northern Ireland, home of the Irish Republican Army and scene of years of terrorist violence.
Analysts in the U.S. were quick to point out that all of the other industrialized nations included in the survey had stringent gun-control laws, but were overall much more violent than the U.S.

Indeed, information on Handgun Control's Center to Prevent Handgun Violence website actually praises Australia and attempts to portray Australia as a much safer country following strict gun-control measures passed by lawmakers in 1996.

"The next time a credulous friend or acquaintance tells you that Australia actually suffered more crime when they got tougher on guns ... offer him a Foster's, and tell him the facts," the CPHV site says.

"In 1998, the rate at which firearms were used in murder, attempted murder, assault, sexual assault and armed robbery went down. In that year, the last for which statistics are available, the number of murders involving a firearm declined to its lowest point in four years," says CPHV.

However, the International Crime Victims Survey notes that overall crime victimization Down Under rose from 27.8 percent of the population in 1988, to 28.6 percent in 1991 to over 30 percent in 1999.

Advocates of less gun control in the U.S. say the drop in gun murder rates was more than offset by the overall victimization increase. Also, they note that Australia leads the ICVS report in three of four categories -- burglary (3.9 percent of the population), violent crime (4.1 percent) and overall victimization (about 31 percent).

Australia is second to England in auto theft (2.1 percent).

In March 2000, WorldNetDaily reported that since Australia's widespread gun ban, violent crime had increased in the country.

WND reported that, although lawmakers responsible for passing the ban promised a safer country, the nation's crime statistics tell a different story:

Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent.
Assaults are up 8.6 percent.
Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent.
In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent.
In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily.
There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly.
 
Yeah, I did. You are trying to make a point about how "gun crime" is defined. And while the point is valid, it's misses the bigger issue; violent vs non-violent crime and how those issues are defined around the world.

No, YOU missed the point. I was talking about surveys in general. My comment applied to ANY sort of survey. The gun crime example was... an example.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top