Even When Anti Gun-Control Statistics are Wrong, They're Still Right

[Osarion]

I don't remember how I stumbled upon this, but PolitiFact did a fact check on an anti-gun control meme targeted at the UK. Basically, the claim was that there was about a 2:1 ratio of violent crimes in the UK compared to the US.
None <--- link to Politifact, I don't know why it says "None"

These numbers are false, as is pointed out by the truth "meter" but if you take the time to read the full article the truth still favors gun ownership. The numbers are wrong because UK violent crime stats take crimes into account that the FBI does not when aggregating it's statistics.

HOWEVER, when you look at like-category to like-category, you end up with a violent crime rate in the of 775 per 100,000 in the UK. What they do NOT tell you though is that these figures are for Wales and England only. NOT Northern Ireland and Scotland, which are all part of the UK (I think a lot of American's don't realize that about Northern Ireland. Look up "CGP Grey UK" on YouTube for a handy informative video).

The violent crime rate in the US according to the FBI is 383 per 100,000 people. Literally half of the figure produced in the UK findings which again, do NOT count Northern Ireland and Scotland.
This fact-check was done in 2013.


If we dig a little deeper, we find that these numbers are especially disturbing when you consider that the US population outnumbers England and Wales in 2013 nearly 5 1/2 TO 1.

Lastly, the gun ban in the UK was an objective failure. Homicide rates shot up immediately following the ban. More in the link below.
Murder and homicide rates before and after gun bans - Crime Prevention Research Center

Everyone should remember this info when arguing gun control with gun grabbers. Numbers don't lie.

Read More

 

[nammac]

Facts have no place in gun control discussions... They're just an inconvenient truth...

 

[Osarion]

The guy who did the in depth analysis, James Alan Fox did admit that the 775:383 UK/US violent crime ratio is very problematic, but even at a 2:1 ratio you have a lot of wiggle room for error.

Even if it was a straight 1:1 per capita ratio of violent crimes in the UK to the US, that's still a very disproportionate number when you consider our population difference.
(sort of like a certain group which comprises 13% of the US population committing 50% of the murder. Ba-zing! ...Ok that was a cheap shot.)

At least in Australia the violent crime rate just sort of stayed unaffected and continued along the same trend it was already on. At least the AU gun ban can be said to be ineffective, rather than the UKs gun ban which had a NEGATIVE effect.

 

[Dungannon]

... They're just an inconvenient truth...

I see what you did there.

 

[Ralgha]

The antis are going to look at those graphs and say that it's all about the long term view, while pointing at the end of it where the trend line is going down. They'll use the same numbers to support their side

 

[308]

Facts have no place in gun control discussions... They're just an inconvenient truth...

To accept facts one must cast off delusion, which is if low probability for the obvious reason that the delusional mind is...delusional. There is comfort in a world of ones own making where things are always just as right and true as one imagines.

 

[Simonpie]

I don't get these 2 quotes at all:

Even if it was a straight 1:1 per capita ratio of violent crimes in the UK to the US, that's still a very disproportionate number when you consider our population difference.

If we dig a little deeper, we find that these numbers are especially disturbing when you consider that the US population outnumbers England and Wales in 2013 nearly 5 1/2 TO 1.

Why does population level matter at all in a "Per Capita" number?

 

[Osarion]

I don't get these 2 quotes at all:

Even if it was a straight 1:1 per capita ratio of violent crimes in the UK to the US, that's still a very disproportionate number when you consider our population difference.

If we dig a little deeper, we find that these numbers are especially disturbing when you consider that the US population outnumbers England and Wales in 2013 nearly 5 1/2 TO 1.

Why does population level matter at all in a "Per Capita" number?

The straight numbers show proportion. You can have a rate of 100 per 100,000 violent crimes in one country, and the exact same in the other. However, if country A has only 500,000 citizens and country B has 5,000,000, you've got a much worse problem in country A.

That's sort of the point of this whole thread. We have 5.5x the pop that England/Wales does, but if these figures are correct, their violent crime rate (measuring like for like crimes) is upwards of twice as bad as ours. That's pretty alarming, and, as you quoted me, even if it were an even per-capita rate, that's still bad due to our population difference.

 

[nwslopoke]

I'm sure many of you have been to Europe at some time. While it is a similar culture it's not the same. But I would say London, Frankfurt and most big Euro cities are more or less equal to big US cities outside of Detroit, Chicago, ect.

IMO, the rural area and villages are what's different to the US smaller towns. While some comparisons are valid the heart of what makes us tick like NASCAR, cheerleaders & guns don't have a ratio that make sense.

Most British & Irish folks I talk to really believe firearms are for the military and maybe police. That's just their DNA. I have coworkers that are intrigued by guns but have no practical use for them.

 

[Simonpie]

We may just have to admit that I don't get it, Osarion.

By your thinking, if we split the USA down the middle, say at the Mississippi river, then we'd have a much better situation because we have lower population in each new country. And yet, the same amount of violence and victims exist.

 

[clearconscience]

Don't worry their false numbers will start to get more accurate once all obama's son's are released back into society.

Obama has commuted more federal sentences than the last 9 presidents combined.
And he still has time.

Once those felons hit the street and now they know they had their homie in the white house to give them a get out of jail free card I'm sure they won't becoming choir boys.

 

[tac]

There are lies, damn' lies, and statistics.

The UK Home Office [that's the police to you and me] figures from 2011/12 -

Quote -

Gun Murders in England, Scotland and Wales 2011/12.

There were 640 Murders / Homicides in Britain (England, Scotland and Wales) in 2011/12 (10.43 per million population).

Of these 640 Murders / Homicides, 44 involved a gun or firearm as the main weapon. Gun murders in Britain in 2011/12 represent 6% of the murder cases, (0.72 gun homicides per million population).

End quote.

Of these 44 crimes, NOT ONE involved the use of a legally-owned firearm. 41 of these killings were drug or gang-related, and, don't hit me for this, but they were also black-on-black.

By way of contrast, back in 2015 there were 2,986 victims of reported firearms-related crimes in Detroit, including 470 homicides. This is less than the 500 deaths from 2012.

In ONE city.

Given the UK population of 65 million, the figure of 44 in that population, less the population of Northern Ireland [1.8 million] gives you a figure of 63.2 million.

The math has already been done - a good deal less than ONE person per million of population.

So tell me how the UK [less Northern Ireland] is 'twice as violent' as the USA?

tac

 

[ChiefStealth]

I still think that using statistics in the gun debate is useless. It does nothing to sway opinion. Noone, on either side, trusts any statistics. The gun debate is an emotional issue. We should work on developing emotional arguments.

 

[clearconscience]

I'm still of the opinion anyone against gun rights should go live in the slums and ghettos of their state.
Or other states would be better. Go live for a year in detriot, compton, south side chicago, ghettos in memphis, new york, florida, hell take your pick.
No whites would last a month, let alone a year.

 

[Osarion]

I still think that using statistics in the gun debate is useless. It does nothing to sway opinion. Noone, on either side, trusts any statistics. The gun debate is an emotional issue. We should work on developing emotional arguments.

Let's get Congress to re-brand the "assault rifle". It will now be known as The Rifle of Peace. You can thank me later lol.

 

[3MTA3]

 

[tac]

Let's not overlook that the 'safety' switch on any gun is operated by a human with a choice in the matter.

tac

 

[41Slinger]

Here's the deal, I'll never be unarmed, unless I choose to be, and that statistic doesn't lie, thank you very much.

 

[PaulB47]

However, if country A has only 500,000 citizens and country B has 5,000,000, you've got a much worse problem in country A.

No you don't. You have an equivalent problem. A person in either country has the same chance of running into crime.

If country B broke in 10 equal pieces, by your logic, each piece will have cut its problem by 90% even if nothing was changed.

The whole point of discussing rates rather than overall numbers, is to eliminate one (of many) sources of error.

As to the cherry-picking of data (leaving out Scotland and Northern Ireland), that is standard gun-banning tactics. Virtually every one of their "studies" does that. But, fair is fair. If they get to eliminate Scotland and Northern Ireland, we should be able to eliminate inner cities, where few of us live or work.

We should work on developing emotional arguments.

As in, "Try to take my gun, I will kill you?"