The primary question is who is more violent US vs England and Wales and looks like due to statistical differences we cant compare well, however in terms of violence all catagories the England and Wales data hasnt shifted much despite all the laws and regulations.
What has caused issues in data tracking is continual changes in how offences are recorded. From the most recent Crime survey: Crime in England and Wales, Year Ending June 2012 I think those decreases, more closely representing aggravated assaults, are more comparable with the decrease in the US violent crime rates.
No. Violent crime involving injury has steadily decreased and crime involving weapons has significantly decreased.
However if you look at the data violence causing injuries is still a little elevated above the 1981 data. In terms of auto accidents injuries and fatalities also have dropped very significantly since the mandates on seat belt use etc. and I would expect that would have the same impact is the UK unless seat belt use were the same in 1981 as they are now. It could be argued that even if you have less people getting shot or stabbed the same number are still getting injured by the assault(which by US law equals aggrevated assault. this is generally accepted legal definition in US common law.).
Are they comparing number of offences in total or number of offences per 100,000 of population? I'm just reading "The Better Angels of our nature" by Stephen Pinker and it has lots to say in this sort of stuff. Well worth a read.
Not true, rates stayed approx the same between 1981 to 1991 and peaked between 1991 and now down to a little above 1991 levels. This is Home Office data for violence resulting in injuries on the table. In essence you are less likely to shot or stabbed but increased chances of being bludgeoned or stomped etc. resulting in injuries compared to 1991 rates (i.e. aggrevated assault by US definition,
I note you are using the older report http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/public.../crime-research/hosb1011/hosb1011?view=Binary From p32 of that report though: instead of the new one: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_283456.pdf Overall though, you'd need to go into a lot more detail than the FBI website presents to begin to present comparable data.
That's not an honest reading of the statistics. If you want to believe those things, fine, but don't pretend the evidence backs you up, because it doesn't. We didn't ban handguns until the late nineties - when the stats start to plummet, CCTV didn't become prevalent until the mid 1990's, when stats start to plummet. There is no restriction on owning nunchaku or knives or genuine Katanas, you just can't carry them around without a lawful reason. Since 1991 the population has increased by ~20%, so if the numbers are the same, they represent a massive drop since 91 not even taking into account changes in the way violent crimes are categorised and reported.
Really? That's not the FBI definition of aggravated assault records I posted earlier. Until you start trawling through those other records you can't produce comparable figures since the majority of offences that make up violent crime in the England/Wales stats aren't recorded and aren't part of your decreased crime record. The closest thing to a comparison as things stand is our decreasing gun and knife crime records.
I am just reading the statistics as they are presented. I am not using kool aid interpretations to justify. Facts are facts. Although those of familiar with statistics know how than be manipulated ( I did a year of post graduate statistics) I am especially suspicious of revised statistics when politicians have an agenda to sell. It seems to me you folks have lost a lot of freedoms without much of a gain in personal security. But to each their own. You have lost freedoms with no gain in personal security. We have gained freedoms and signficantly increased our personal security and decreased violent crime
Don't the goalposts on what is classed as what keep moving? Quoting statistics is all well and good as long as there is a constant behind them. I'm not convinced there is. Policy tends to be proved right by adjustment
You're misreading the statistics, and if you really know statistics, then I can only assume you're doing so deliberately. And then you post a Fox News link? Your lack of integrity is truly inspiring.
The studies contain a mixture of hard figures (ie totals) and estimates (ie per 100,000 of the population based on interview samples and hard figures). These are totals, not per 100,000: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime...fences-involving-knives-and-sharp-instruments http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime...une-2012.html#tab-Offences-involving-firearms This supplement on intimate violence is interesting: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/public.../crime-research/hosb0212/hosb0212?view=Binary On page 18 it notes;