• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Shot NYPD cop dies

And it clearly shows your homicide is 4.7 times ours with nearly three quarters of those involving the use of a firearm. As I've said already if you were to remove the firearms killings from your overall homicide statistics your homicide rate would be pretty similar to that of most other developed countries
And our population is 4.9 times that of yours. So it would seem that your homocide rates parrallel ours, if not higher....your argument is not apples to apples.
 
And our population is 4.9 times that of yours. So it would seem that your homocide rates parrallel ours, if not higher....your argument is not apples to apples.

Thats was a per capita figure per 100,000 not by overall population size
 
Thats a per capita figure per 100,000
No, England has approximately 62 million people, the US has 307 million....simple math.

However, as a legal gun owner, I don't have a problem with any idea that would actually work getting illegal guns out of criminals hands. But you are not offering viable solutions to that. Only blathering about MY legally owned weapons that will hurt no one unjustly.

Case in point. Chicago has arguably stricter gun laws than you do in England, yet their homocide rate is higher than or comparable to Atlanta where guns are easier to obtain. Tell us why.
 
No, England has approximately 62 million people, the US has 307 million....simple math.

Look up what the term 'per capita' means and get back to me US = 4.7 homicides per 100,000 UK= 1.0 homicides per 100,000

However, as a legal gun owner, I don't have a problem with any idea that would actually work getting illegal guns out of criminals hands. But you are not offering viable solutions to that. Only blathering about MY legally owned weapons that will hurt no one unjustly.

What if you legally sell that gun on and then it gets sold on again to a criminal ? There really is no way to stop that happening

Case in point. Chicago has arguably stricter gun laws than you do in England, yet their homocide rate is higher than or comparable to Atlanta where guns are easier to obtain. Tell us why.

There is no state in the US with a gun death rate anywhere near as low as that in the UK nor any state with comparable gun laws. Hawaii gets the closest but thats still ten times higher
 
Last edited:
That's non-responsive.
you really seem to not have a very deep view on this matter other than "derp, guns bad".

You inferred the situation in the US would be different to other countries were there no guns, I simply asked you why you thought that
 
You inferred the situation in the US would be different to other countries were there no guns, I simply asked you why you thought that


For the same reason that idiots in england riot at soccer games, and we can barely stay awake for one.


You have cultural differences that you fail to factor into this. It's superficial at best.
 
Look up what the term 'per capita' means and get back to me US = 4.7 homicides per 100,000 UK= 1.0 homicides per 100,000



What if you legally sell that gun on and then it gets sold on again to a criminal ? There really is no way to stop that happening



There is no state in the US with a gun death rate anywhere near as low as that in the UK nor any state with comparable gun laws. Hawaii gets the closest but thats still ten times higher
I know fully how stats can be manipulated. You made the claim that your homocide rate was 4.7 times lower than ours, but fail to understand that your population is 4.9 times smaller. So, while the homocide rate with a gun may be lower, overall they remain consistent so if there are no guns, that doesn't stop the killing.

The other question about Chicago v Atlanta you failed to address, and I suggest you read Chicago's gun laws you'd be wrong there too.
 
I know fully how stats can be manipulated. You made the claim that your homocide rate was 4.7 times lower than ours, but fail to understand that your population is 4.9 times smaller. So, while the homocide rate with a gun may be lower, overall they remain consistent so if there are no guns, that doesn't stop the killing.

You are embarrassing yourself here given this has been explained for you already . You clearly do not understand that the per capita figures already take this population differential into account

The other question about Chicago v Atlanta you failed to address, and I suggest you read Chicago's gun laws you'd be wrong there too.

Chicago's overall homicide rate from all causes being some 18.5 times higher than the UK so whats your point here ?
 
Last edited:
You lose on average an officer per week to shooting so thats a difficult claim to substantiate given the extreme rarity of such events in other developed nations

Millions upon millions of contacts every year and very few result in deaths. Yea its a dangerous job...but life is dangerous. Some tweaker could bust down my door right now and put a hatchet in my chest. I wouldnt blame the hatchet though, I would blame the tweaker.

The main cause of police death isnt due to firearm wounds...its from car accidents. Should I give up my cruiser?
 
You are embarrassing yourself here given this has been explained for you already . You clearly do not understand that the per capita figures already take this population differential into account



Chicago's overall homicide rate from all causes being some 18.5 times higher than the UK so whats your point here ?

And Vermont's is comparable to yours and they have very lax gun laws. The problem with this argument is that there is such variability in violent crime rates across the United States and such a wide variability in gun laws that any conclusion you draw based on National figures is necessarily invalid. Some of the highest violent crime rate locales also have the strictest gun laws and vice versa. You'd be well informed to look for causes elsewhere. Like looking at poverty and lack of meaningful employment for starters.
 
And Vermont's is comparable to yours and they have very lax gun laws.
The problem with this argument is that there is such variability in violent crime rates across the United States and such a wide variability in gun laws that any conclusion you draw based on National figures is necessarily invalid. Some of the highest violent crime rate locales also have the strictest gun laws and vice versa. You'd be well informed to look for causes elsewhere. Like looking at poverty and lack of meaningful employment for starters.

We have a wide variability in such factors too yet still get nowhere near US homicide numbers. Its always easier to make your national homicide stats look better by omitting the worst parts. That manipulative exercise could be easily be done done using UK regional stats too. If I picked out Berkshire or Buckinghamshire for example it would give an equally misleading picture of our homicide rates making them look much better than they are.
 
Last edited:
You are embarrassing yourself here given this has been explained for you already . You clearly do not understand that the per capita figures already take this population differential into account



Chicago's overall homicide rate from all causes being some 18.5 times higher than the UK so whats your point here ?

Your argument is disingenuous at best...you are cherry picking to come up with your lop sided figures. You want to use per capita when it suits your argument, then make broad claims when the per capita figures don't...for instance there was a popular meme some time ago comparing US and England crime stats, and the Daily telegraph stated that the numbers were over 2,000 per 100,000 violent crimes in England vs. under 500 per 100,000 in the US...Politifact looked at this and decided that the stats were an unequal comparison largely because of the way the different countries calculated their numbers, much like you attempt with your arguments. But, they looked at the numbers and compared them closer to like categories and came up with this....

"The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports defines a ‘violent crime’ as one of four specific offenses: murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault." By contrast, "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.

snip

We looked at the raw violent crime numbers for each country, using statistics for England and Wales for 2012 and for the United States for 2011, in a way that sought to compare apples to apples. (We should note that the United Kingdom includes Scotland and Northern Ireland, but the numbers in the meme appear to be based only on crime in England and Wales, which are calculated separately.)

For England and Wales, we added together three crime categories: "violence against the person, with injury," "most serious sexual crime," and "robbery." This produced a rate of 775 violent crimes per 100,000 people.

For the United States, we used the FBI’s four standard categories for violent crime that Bier cited. We came up with a rate of 383 violent crimes per 100,000 people."

Social media post says U.K. has far higher violent crime rate than U.S. does | PolitiFact

So, while it certainly is not 4 times the rate in England v the US that the original meme tried to put forth, it still comes out in the apples to apples comparison with England being a more violent country than the US. So, when wringing your hands over OUR gun laws, maybe you'd do best to consider your own violent crime....Clearly, your country is more violent, and less safe for the average citizen than the US.
 
You are kidding yourself if you think I'm just about to repost everything I already have on this thread confirming it

So far I've seen exactly 0 evidence that proves that. I've seen greater access to firearms here in America...and a reduction in homicides though


And the easy access to guns makes the killing of those officers that much easier

Prove it ;)

Did you know the UK has a worse per capita drug problem than the US ?

List of countries by prevalence of opiates use - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So simply blaming your gun killings on drug abuse can't be it

I'm not. We have a variety of issues. Your system also handles drug crime differently.



If you keep that gun in your home you are in fact seven times more likely to see death or injury to you or your family than from any intruder

Did you know that statistic is complete garbage? I've lived in a home with 20 guns. I didn't die 20 times over. Or is that number supposed to be 140? Idk. I have 2 in my place now.

Of course...I'm not a moron who has no concept of how to safely handle a firearm. I won't be dying by own hand. And I certainly won't be hurting anyone in my family. Again...I'm smart enough to handle a firearm. It really isn't complicated.
 
Dude whines about American guns, but when you ask him what to do about his perceived issue, he's rather ambiguous.
 
Dude whines about American guns, but when you ask him what to do about his perceived issue, he's rather ambiguous.

Absolutely correct Rev....All he is really doing is displaying his own fear of a piece of metal....Until he realizes that it is the person wielding the gun, and not the gun itself, then there will be no reason in his arguments, just platitudes, and talking points, and name calling....
 
Your argument is disingenuous at best...you are cherry picking to come up with your lop sided figures. You want to use per capita when it suits your argument, then make broad claims when the per capita figures don't...for instance there was a popular meme some time ago comparing US and England crime stats, and the Daily telegraph stated that the numbers were over 2,000 per 100,000 violent crimes in England vs. under 500 per 100,000 in the US...Politifact looked at this and decided that the stats were an unequal comparison largely because of the way the different countries calculated their numbers, much like you attempt with your arguments. But, they looked at the numbers and compared them closer to like categories and came up with this....

"The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports defines a ‘violent crime’ as one of four specific offenses: murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault." By contrast, "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.

snip

We looked at the raw violent crime numbers for each country, using statistics for England and Wales for 2012 and for the United States for 2011, in a way that sought to compare apples to apples. (We should note that the United Kingdom includes Scotland and Northern Ireland, but the numbers in the meme appear to be based only on crime in England and Wales, which are calculated separately.)

For England and Wales, we added together three crime categories: "violence against the person, with injury," "most serious sexual crime," and "robbery." This produced a rate of 775 violent crimes per 100,000 people.

For the United States, we used the FBI’s four standard categories for violent crime that Bier cited. We came up with a rate of 383 violent crimes per 100,000 people."

Social media post says U.K. has far higher violent crime rate than U.S. does | PolitiFact

So, while it certainly is not 4 times the rate in England v the US that the original meme tried to put forth, it still comes out in the apples to apples comparison with England being a more violent country than the US. So, when wringing your hands over OUR gun laws, maybe you'd do best to consider your own violent crime....Clearly, your country is more violent, and less safe for the average citizen than the US.

Interestingly your article goes on to say

Our preliminary attempt to make an apples-to-apples comparison shows a much smaller difference in violent crime rates between the two countries, but criminologists say differences in how the statistics are collected make it impossible to produce a truly valid comparison.

Your blogger clearly didn't like that conclusion and preferred twitter instead so I'll stick with the criminologists if its all the same.

A far more directly comparable figure is US/UK levels of incarceration which show the US at 707 per 100,000 vs the UK at 148. Coupled with your 4.7 times greater homicide rate these figures certainly give lie to the fact that the US is either safer or more law abiding than the UK.

List of countries by incarceration rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you still do not understand what the term per capita means though you will obviously have difficulty in interpreting these figures correctly :(
 
Last edited:
So far I've seen exactly 0 evidence that proves that. I've seen greater access to firearms here in America...and a reduction in homicides though

Stop wasting my time I'm not prepared to repost everything all over again in the hope that you even open the links this time round :roll:


Already done multiple times over throughout this thread

I'm not. We have a variety of issues. Your system also handles drug crime differently.
We have more drug crime than you but still have hugely less gun crime nonetheless. That pretty much speaks for itself

Did you know that statistic is complete garbage?

Prove it ?

I've lived in a home with 20 guns. I didn't die 20 times over. Or is that number supposed to be 140? Idk. I have 2 in my place now.
It only has to happen once though doesn't it ?

Of course...I'm not a moron who has no concept of how to safely handle a firearm. I won't be dying by own hand. And I certainly won't be hurting anyone in my family. Again...I'm smart enough to handle a firearm. It really isn't complicated.

A view that was no doubt echoed by the great bulk of gun owners who then went on to lose family members in just such a manner
 
Back
Top Bottom